TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (9) TMI 744
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... which was denied by the AO on the ground that the assessee is a co-operative bank hit by the provisions of section 80P(4), and the action of the AO was confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Since the issue involved in these appeals is common, arising out of substantially identical facts and grounds, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience. Facts of the Case 3. The assessee, a co-operative bank registered under the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, was placed under liquidation by the Reserve Bank of India in the year 2003. The Government of Gujarat appointed a liquidator, under whose supervision the assessee continued to carry on recovery operations from borrowers, deposit management and incidental functions required under the liquidation proceedings. The chronology of return filing, deduction claimed, and assessment orders for the three years under appeal is tabulated as under: Particulars A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 Date of filing original return 16.09.2013 17.09.2014 30.09.2015 Returned income Original as well as revised Nil Nil Nil Revised return....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te Co-operative Societies Act and therefore eligible for deduction was also rejected on the ground that all co-operative banks are registered under the respective State Co-operative Societies Acts, and mere registration as a co-operative society does not alter the legal position created by section 80P. AO disallowed the deduction of Rs. 10,19,72,904/- claimed under section 80P and added the same to the total income of the assessee. He also directed initiation of penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. 8. For A.Y. 2013-14 the assessee preferred appeal before CIT(A). The appeal before CIT(A) was delayed by more than 6 months. The CIT(A) rejected the condonation of delay however also examined the matter on merit and dismissed the appeal. For other two assessment years also the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on merit. The assessee raised multiple grounds before CIT(A). In the first ground, it was contended that the AO had erred in disallowing deduction under section 80P amounting to Rs. 10,19,72,905/-, and that on facts as well as in law, the claim of deduction ought to have been allowed. In the second ground, the assessee argued that bein....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....to any co-operative bank other than PACS and PCARDBs. 11. The assessee further relied on an order of the ITAT in its own case for an earlier assessment year (ITA No.2251/Ahd/2015 for A.Y. 2011-12). The CIT(A), however, rejected this plea by observing that each assessment year is a separate and independent unit of assessment, and the findings of the Tribunal in an earlier year could not govern the outcome in the present year. 12. Aggrieved by the orders of CIT(A) the assessee is in appeals before us raising following revised grounds before us: * In Appeal No. ITA 738/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2013-14 1. Ld. NFAC has erred in dismissing the appeal on facts and in law on the ground of non-condonation of delay and on merits confirming addition of Rs. 10,19,72,904/- as taxable income. 2. Assessee being bank under liquidation administered by official liquidator being official of Cooperation Department holds more than one charge and therefore appeal was filed without Miscellaneous Application for Condonation of Delay by bonafide and inadvertent mistake, such fact ought to have been brought to the notice of officiating official liquidator and appellate order was pa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the judgement of appellate order of Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad Bench as well as without considering DICCI Act and its regulations as well as Sec. 115A of the Gujarat Cooperative Societies Act 1961. 4. LD NFAC has failed to appreciate that facts in the Associated Power Company Ltd is pertaining to statutory direction for utilization of funds in certain contingencies till then funds are at the disposal and under ownership of such power company which facts do not apply at all in the case of appellant because appellant is statutorily under obligation to apply funds only for payment of liabilities of DICCI and pending such liabilities such amounts are deposited with bank without any discretion to apply such fund for any purpose and such deposit and interest are also diverted at source because bank under liquidation has no discretion to apply funds available with bank under liquidation for purpose of satisfying only liability of DICCI and after satisfaction of liabilities of DICCI other liabilities can be paid. 5. NFAC has grievously erred in confirming taxable income of Rs. 32,58,14,133/- * In Appeal No. ITA 1415/Ahd/2025 for A.Y. 2015-16 1. LD ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....chargeable to tax in the hands of the assessee-bank under liquidation, or whether such amounts stand diverted at source by overriding statutory title in favour of the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) under the scheme of the DICGC Act, 1961 and section 115A of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act, 1961, in view of the binding precedent of the Tribunal in assessee's own case for earlier year. 14. During the course of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (AR) of the assessee submitted that the claim of deduction under section 80P of the Act was not made in the original return of income. The assessee had subsequently revised the return on the misleading advice of a local tax consultant. The AR explained that the assessee, being a co-operative bank under liquidation, is saddled with substantial liability towards repayment of depositors through the Deposit Insurance and Credit Guarantee Corporation (DICGC) in terms of the scheme framed under section 18 of the DICGC Act, 1961. It was therefore urged that the income reflected in the accounts does not represent real income in the hands of the assessee but is only an amount statutorily earmarked for d....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... assessee is a co-operative bank under liquidation. The balance sheet and profit and loss account indicate that the assessee has substantial deposits and advances on which interest income has been credited. At the same time, the liabilities of the assessee, particularly towards DICGC under the statutory scheme, are substantial and in fact exceed the available deposits and assets. The profit and loss account also shows that the expenditure towards One Time Settlement (OTS) and other liquidation-related obligations exceeds the interest income earned. On a perusal of the consolidated balance sheet and profit and loss account placed on record for the A.Y. 2013-14, we further observe that the assessee is having a debit balance in its Profit and Loss Account aggregating to Rs. 441.97 crore, reflecting accumulated losses. The balance sheet also discloses that the DICGC claim outstanding is to the tune of Rs. 374.40 crore, far exceeding the realizable assets. The net worth of the assessee stands completely eroded and is in the negative. These financial indicators, coupled with the assessee being under liquidation, clearly demonstrate that the assessee is not carrying on normal banking busi....